Compliance With Supportive Periodontal Therapy

Abstract

All new patients commencing supportive periodontal therapy (periodontal maintenance) after treatment in a specialist periodontal practice from 1983 to 1986 were identified from practice records. Based on their compliance with the recommended schedule of visits, the patients were classified as either compliant or non-compliant. The results indicated that there were no significant differences between compliant and non-compliant patients with regards to age, sex, number of missing teeth, plaque score, or periodontal disease severity. More non-compliant patients than compliant patients were smokers (P less than 0.05). By contrast, more compliant patients were covered by private dental insurance (P less than 0.01) and more had periodontal surgery during treatment (P less than 0.001). Only 36% of the initial patient sample was found to be compliant at the end of 1989, with the greatest patient loss in the first year of supportive periodontal therapy of about 42%. The annual attrition rate decreased in subsequent years to average about 10% of those remaining in each year, indicating that a patient is more likely to remain compliant if he or she attends for at least 1 year of supportive periodontal treatment. Non-compliant patients were sent a questionnaire seeking reasons for their non-compliance. Forty percent of the questionnaires were returned. The most common reason given for non-compliance was that a general dental practitioner was attending to the patient's periodontal treatment needs. Many considered supportive periodontal therapy to be too expensive, while a significant proportion considered that they no longer required treatment.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

See you in three months! The rationale for the three monthly peridontal recall interval: a risk based approach

“…Only after a discussion has taken place Unfortunately it has also been demonstrated that the majority of patients fail to comply with maintenance regimens. 45,46 Thus treatment may not be successful irrespective of a proposed and attended recall interval. All patients must be informed of this.…”

Site‐specific treatment outcome in smokers following 12 months of supportive periodontal therapy

“…Further, it appears that SPT compliance decreases as the risk profile of the subject increases (Mendoza et al. 1991, Matuliene et al. 2010).…”

"Avaliação da cooperação com os retornos de controle e manutenção periodontal dos pacientes da clínica de pós-graduação da FOUSP"

“…Enquanto que alguns estudos mostraram números mais favoráveis (MENDONZA; NEWCOMB; NIXON, 1991;TAN;POWELL;SEYMOR, 1992;CHECCHI et al, 1994;GREIN, 1994 Os parâmetros clínicos estudados (índice de placa, sangramento à sondagem, profundidade de bolsa e número de dentes presentes) não se relacionam com o grau de cooperação do paciente (GALGUT, 1991;MENDONZA;NEWCOMB;NIXON, 1991;DEMIREL;EFEODLU, 1995;KÖNIG et al, 2001).…”

“…A cooperação de pacientes atendidos em Universidades (KÖNIG et al, 2001; OJIMA; HANIOKA; SHIZUKUISHI, 2001) não difere em relação aos atendidos em clínicas particulares (WILSON JR et al, 1984;MENDONZA;NEWCOMB;NIXON, 1991;GALGUT, 1991;TAN;POWELL;SEYMOR, 1992;CHECCHI et al, 1994;LIMA;GARCIA;LÁZARI;SAMPAIO, 2002;DEMETRIOU;TSAMI-PANDI;PARASHIS, 1995;SOOLARI;ROKN, 2003;DEMIREL;EFEODLU, 1995;GREIN, 1994;NOVAES, 2001). Não há um consenso entre os autores sobre quais fatores podem estar relacionados à cooperação, e se esta relação é significante.…”

“…Muitos estudos mostraram que o grau de cooperação com os retornos de manutenção é bastante baixo (WILSON JR et al, 1984;MENDONZA;NEWCOMB;NIXON, 1991;CHECCHI et al, 1994;DEMETRIOU;TSAMI-PANDI;PARASHIS, 1995;DEMIREL;EFEODLU, 1995;AINAMO;AINAMO, 1996;GARCIA;LÁZARI;SAMPAIO, 2002;SOOLARI;ROKN, 2003 JENSEN, 1965;NYMAN, 1975) direcionou o tratamento periodontal para a remoção e controle da placa supra e subgengival (AXELSSON; LINDHE, 1981;NYMAN, 1984).…”